Purpose of any Company is Profits - screw the workers
From the Washington Post of 20 Apr 2009:
Chrysler Financial Refused Government Loan Over Limits on Executive Pay
Top officials at Chrysler Financial turned away a $750 million government loan because executives didn't want to abide by new federal limits on pay, sources familiar with the matter say.
This cannot be true. After all, everyone knows their problems are only traceable to greedy and lazy union workers, unfair Japanese competition, tax laws, environmental laws, the education system ...
Or maybe the only problem has always been overpaid executive who know the purpose of a corporation is its profits - especially top management profits.
Reason why Chrysler is all but gone - its executives. But again, a fundamental fact is demonstrated. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. That increases to 99% when management casts blame elsewhere.
They would rather destroy the company than take reduced pay packages more in line with what they deserve.
Nardelli demanded $200million to leave Home Depot - to save the company. Now he is doing same to Chrysler? Of course. He is a business school graduate. He has no idea how cars work or how a product is designed. But he knows what is most important - his pay package.
Screw America is taught in the business schools. No wonder military academies do not graduate business school majors. They need people who are responsible, informed, and understand who is the reason for failure.
Chrysler has so been destroyed by MBA management for so long that even Fiat cannot find enough worth buying. Especially when getting rid of management will cost them how many more hundreds of $million? Only part of Chrysler that has any value is its dealer network. Chrysler does not even have one new product in the innovation pipeline – as any good business school graduate would do to cut costs. Chrysler is gone.
In forgoing the loan, Chrysler Financial opted to use more expensive financing from private banks, adding to the burdens of the already fragile automaker and its financing company.
Chrysler Financial denied in a statement that its executives had refused to accept new limits on their pay.
Lying once worked when a president routinely protected defective and anti-American companies (ie big steel, First Energy, etc). Those days are over.
Obama administration and Congress have toughened the rules.
... on April 7, Treasury asked Chrysler Financial to have its top 25 executives sign waivers regarding their compensation, according to sources familiar with the matter who declined to talk publicly because they were not authorized to speak.
Within a week, the company responded that some of the executives had refused to give their approval. By last week, Treasury had rescinded the loan offer, the sources said.
Dear God, man. Its 420 day - have one and lighten up a bit.
Dear God, man. Its 420 day - have one and lighten up a bit.
Right. We should be laughing because so many more Americans will have no jobs thanks to greedy MBA executives. How many tens of thousands will be unemployed because Nardelli and his peers are not paid enough?
Ha Ha Ha. It's that funny? Especially management that says they are paid too few $million annually? Greed is good. It must be true. Gordon Gekko said so.
Another knife has been pushed deeply into the backs of Chrysler employees - who were blamed by myths for being too greedy.
Right. We should be laughing because so many more Americans will have no jobs thanks to greedy MBA executives.
Hey, I just lost my job of ten years thanks to the greedy dumbasses at Fannie Mae.
So I can laugh if I damn well want to.
Ugghh - that sux. Maybe if there was an equal outrage about the damn Bonus's that Fannie and Freddie paid out (yes, actual bonus's) then they could have kept Beestie.
Forkin GD Gov't Mf POS AH
They didn't restrict the bonuses there either?
Good grief. I really hope Congress decides to cap how much pay anyone in this country can make as an executive. It is the only way to rein it in.
They didn't restrict the bonuses there either?
Good grief. I really hope Congress decides to cap how much pay anyone in this country can make as an executive. It is the only way to rein it in.
That would be good? You want the government to control the private market? Be careful what you wish for.:neutral:
Yes, I do want Congress to restrict executive pay, because it is out of control, and at the expense of everyone else in society. By the Gods, they always whine about regulation, but if they would police themselves and regulate themselves then we wouldn't have to. But you can't regulate greed. So, no, I don't have a problem with Congress putting a cap on how much they can earn.
Also, if they want bonuses, it should be in the form of stocks to be paid out 4 quarters after it is given, so the bonuses are tied directly to the health of the company and how well it does.
They didn't restrict the bonuses there either?
OMFG - Are you serious? Please do a little looking into this. They paid out more in bonus's than AIG in retention payments.
I really hope Congress decides to cap how much pay anyone in this country can make as an executive.
I think that will be the end of America as we know it. I'd be hard pressed to think of a worse thing that could happen.
By the Gods, [COLOR="Purple"](Congress)[/COLOR] always whine about regulation,
but if [COLOR="Purple"](Congress)[/COLOR] would police [COLOR="Purple"](Congress)[/COLOR]
and regulate [COLOR="Purple"](Congress)[/COLOR] then we wouldn't have to.
But you can't regulate greed. So, no, I don't have a problem with
Congress putting a cap on how much [COLOR="Purple"](Congress)[/COLOR] can earn.
Maybe we should start there. Anyone see a problem with that?
That would be good? You want the government to control the private market?
It should not be necessary. But something changed. Boards of Directors no longer represent the interest of stockholders. That is their job. But many companies have subverted their Boards for the benefit of management and at the expense of all others.
For example, a CEO (president) should never be Chairman of the Board. Chairman represents stockholders. His job is to keep the CEO in line. In troubled company after company, the CEO is also the Chairman.
For example, Robert Allen of AT&T perverted the Chairman's function. Fiorina of HP also had too much power. Same with Akers of IBM.
Stunning is how much information was denied outside Board members in GM. For example, much financial information available to insider board members was withheld from outside Board members. Outside Board member were limited to how long they could study the financials - ie 45 minutes.
Executives should answer to the Board - not be the Board. Having perverted the function, executive compensation has skyrocketed at the expense of employees and stockholders.
One stunning example was AT&T. The CFO quietly whispered to Sandy Weil (an outside Board member) that AT&T could not meet its short term debt payments. That is about the most chilling fact in any board room. However AT&T was literally on the verge of complete meltdown before any outside Board members realized that AT&T was only months from complete disintegration. That also would never happen if executives truly answered to the Board.
AT&T continued to disintegrate while richly rewarding executives. Therefore all that was left was a mobile phone operation using obsolete frequency division multiplexing and the name. AT&T's remains were purchased only for the name - while its Board remained completely ignorant of the destruction.
Today, the Chairman too often is the CEO. #1 symptom for trouble. Nobody represents the stockholders. Executives simply reward each other.
Maybe we should start there. Anyone see a problem with that?
Nope, not at all.
Capping executive salaries is a good idea in theory, and I've put some thought into it. From where I'm standing, the only way you could do it fairly would be to make executive salaries only a certain percentage higher than their lowest paid full time employee. That percentage would be the issue, but it would certainly limit the amount multi-national corporations could pay their execs, but still allow them to pay the sort of money which is usually comensurate with the knowledge and experience required to fill such positions.
eta: This system would obviously very likely improve the salaries paid to lower income earners which could be a good thing. Kind of like re-distributing the wealth. ;)
Capping executive salaries is a good idea in theory, and I've put some thought into it. From where I'm standing, the only way you could do it fairly would be to make executive salaries only a certain percentage higher than their lowest paid full time employee. That percentage would be the issue, but it would certainly limit the amount multi-national corporations could pay their execs, but still allow them to pay the sort of money which is usually comensurate with the knowledge and experience required to fill such positions.
eta: This system would obviously very likely improve the salaries paid to lower income earners which could be a good thing. Kind of like re-distributing the wealth. ;)
Only that in a free market the government can't steal the profits made by the company. So even if the salaries are capped, the profits will go to the shareholders. Many employers and employees are shareholders.
I don't have any issue with shareholders reaping the benefits of their shares. I wouldn't consider the issue of profit from shares to be the same as salary.
eta: Major shareholders should be held accountable for the decisions they influence though.
Limiting pay is not a good idea in any way.
Capping executive salaries is a good idea in theory, and I've put some thought into it. From where I'm standing, the only way you could do it fairly would be to make executive salaries only a certain percentage higher than their lowest paid full time employee. That percentage would be the issue, but it would certainly limit the amount multi-national corporations could pay their execs, but still allow them to pay the sort of money which is usually comensurate with the knowledge and experience required to fill such positions.
eta: This system would obviously very likely improve the salaries paid to lower income earners which could be a good thing. Kind of like re-distributing the wealth. ;)
Sounds like a good idea, but those who work the system the way it is now, would find a way to do it again. Not saying something shouldn't be done, but I think if we were to put a limitation on executives at all companies, we would have to limit wages all the way down to the janitors or we would end up finding a lot of slimy personnel records ten or twenty years down the road (I'm thinking instead of executives, they would take different titles, but have the same influence on the company behind the scenes.) And really, nobody wants to be limited to what they can earn...not by some other entity like the government. Would it be fair to limit the wages an admin makes? Or a sales person? Once we go there, we have fallen pretty far down that slippery slope and we are still stuck to stagnant wages for everyone.
Maybe I am just cynical, but I don't think we can force the kind of people who have that much greed to change.
I do think we should change things like not allowing CEOs to be chairmen of the board. I worked for HP when Fiorina was in charge and always felt there was something wrong with that. Too much trust put into one person who hadn't really proved she deserved it.
From what I can tell, most lower paid and middle income workers already have to suffer the pay limitations of their job, regardless of how good they are or how hard they work.
Why should the same not apply to all levels?
And I think that is actually going to get much worse as more people are out of work, people will be forced to put up with more crap from the boss and poor work conditons just to put food on the table.
Yep. absolutely.
It's a crying shame how much bullying goes on in the workplace!
Yes, I agree to a point. A lot of wages for lower and middle income earners have have remained stagnant. And not because they don't work hard enough. But not all have been this way. And not for as long as it seems. For instance, my husband makes significantly more than he did 10 years ago, but he has the same title and does the same thing. There are some in his field that make more then he does and some that make less. Now, if someone came in and said "Hey, XXX is the new limit to what Sys Analysts can make" and it was less than his wage? Yeah, he and everyone who makes what he makes or more get a cut in pay. Sucks. So, how motivated is he going to be to get better at what he does? What kind of pride will people have in their work if there is no hope for advancement? I agree that the salaries are out of wack and I know that was anecdotal, but I believe there are a lot of those people out there, too.
Yep. absolutely.
It's a crying shame how much bullying goes on in the workplace!
I agree. Employers are pretty terrible sometimes...and they get away with a lot, even with laws and limitations.
That's a good point case.
I think the issue still needs addressing, although it's very likely that executive salaries will be normalized in due course thanks to the financial situation we're all facing.
I agree. Employers are pretty terrible sometimes...and they get away with a lot, even with laws and limitations.
I am already seeing and hearing fallout over the current economic conditions.
Ask anyone in the work force today how many times they have heard, "It's good to be employed." in the last 4 months.
Maybe we should start there. Anyone see a problem with that?
Hey, I agree about Congress. But the people in Congress don't make millions of dollars. I think BOTH Congress and the market need some serious adjusting.
From what I can tell, most lower paid and middle income workers already have to suffer the pay limitations of their job, regardless of how good they are or how hard they work.
Why should the same not apply to all levels?
No one has to suffer the pay limitations of their job. Each and every person is free to believe they are worth more. Some people just decide to do something with that belief.
Capping executive salaries is a good idea in theory, and I've put some thought into it. From where I'm standing, the only way you could do it fairly would be to make executive salaries only a certain percentage higher than their lowest paid full time employee. That percentage would be the issue, but it would certainly limit the amount multi-national corporations could pay their execs, but still allow them to pay the sort of money which is usually comensurate with the knowledge and experience required to fill such positions.
eta: This system would obviously very likely improve the salaries paid to lower income earners which could be a good thing. Kind of like re-distributing the wealth. ;)
I have actually proposed this before, because the real problem is that fact that executives in the US now make almost 500x more than the average worker. Bring that back down to where it should be and where it is in other countries, which more like 30%. And that is where it used to be in this country as well.
Sounds like a good idea, but those who work the system the way it is now, would find a way to do it again. Not saying something shouldn't be done, but I think if we were to put a limitation on executives at all companies, we would have to limit wages all the way down to the janitors or we would end up finding a lot of slimy personnel records ten or twenty years down the road (I'm thinking instead of executives, they would take different titles, but have the same influence on the company behind the scenes.) And really, nobody wants to be limited to what they can earn...not by some other entity like the government. Would it be fair to limit the wages an admin makes? Or a sales person? Once we go there, we have fallen pretty far down that slippery slope and we are still stuck to stagnant wages for everyone.
Maybe I am just cynical, but I don't think we can force the kind of people who have that much greed to change.
I do think we should change things like not allowing CEOs to be chairmen of the board. I worked for HP when Fiorina was in charge and always felt there was something wrong with that. Too much trust put into one person who hadn't really proved she deserved it.
Maybe we could just put them all in prison for a few years. Doing hard labor.
Yes, I agree to a point. A lot of wages for lower and middle income earners have have remained stagnant. And not because they don't work hard enough. But not all have been this way. And not for as long as it seems. For instance, my husband makes significantly more than he did 10 years ago, but he has the same title and does the same thing. There are some in his field that make more then he does and some that make less. Now, if someone came in and said "Hey, XXX is the new limit to what Sys Analysts can make" and it was less than his wage? Yeah, he and everyone who makes what he makes or more get a cut in pay. Sucks. So, how motivated is he going to be to get better at what he does? What kind of pride will people have in their work if there is no hope for advancement? I agree that the salaries are out of wack and I know that was anecdotal, but I believe there are a lot of those people out there, too.
The way I look at is this, if the wage disparity is addressed as a % of what the top can earn over the bottom, then the majority of the workforce would actually enjoy higher pay. The only ones who would suffer, if you can even call it that, are the ones who are making really, really high salaries. I honestly believe if the company shared the wealth more evenly with the workforce, they would have a happier, more loyal workforce who would be willing to work harder to make good things happen. A happy, respected, well-paid employee is a GOOD employee. And unhappy, disrespected, under-paid employees, not so much.
snip~ Outside Board member were limited to how long they could study the financials - ie 45 minutes. ~snip
Without honest accounting practices it wouldn't much matter.
No one has to suffer the pay limitations of their job. Each and every person is free to believe they are worth more. Some people just decide to do something with that belief.
If you believe that your view of the situation must be very simplistic, and I don't believe it's a simple issue. There are so many contributing factors to wages and why people 'settle' for the things they settle for. Sure people can decide to go and get more qualified or change jobs or be more entrepreneaurial (sp?), but sometimes it all just comes down to dumb luck, or being in the right place at the right time or knowing the right people etc. Usually it takes a lot more than just hard work.
Without honest accounting practices it wouldn't much matter.
Each and every person is free to believe they are worth more. Some people just decide to do something with that belief.
So that corporate president (after too many beers) said to me, "Jason makes the accounting say what it has to say."
Some people did decide to do something with that belief - especially when there is no chairman and independent Board of Directors representing stockholder's interests.
Management that must work for their stockholders (and customers) must have honest accounting and have pay packages restricted to reasonable amounts. With so many companies where the executive is also Chairman of the Board, no wonder highest paid executives are also running some of this nation's worst performing companies. No wonder spread sheet games are now routine and acceptable.
Anyone ready yet for big steel running to the government for protection? Symptoms are there.
Meanwhile, because he was doing good for GM, Rick Wagoner got a 34% increase in 2006 and a 67% increase in 2007. Wagoner was both the CEO and the Chairman of a Board that approved those pay packages. GM's outside Board members were heavily restricted in what they were permitted to know. Again explains why executives are so grossly overpaid (and not held responsible for the resulting disasters).
Raping a company is now acceptable. Then blame union workers for being overpaid. You even saw some in The Cellar agree. But how many noticed nobody to represent stockholder's interests - now the even the SEC was denuded.
The way I look at is this, if the wage disparity is addressed as a % of what the top can earn over the bottom, then the majority of the workforce would actually enjoy higher pay. The only ones who would suffer, if you can even call it that, are the ones who are making really, really high salaries. I honestly believe if the company shared the wealth more evenly with the workforce, they would have a happier, more loyal workforce who would be willing to work harder to make good things happen. A happy, respected, well-paid employee is a GOOD employee. And unhappy, disrespected, under-paid employees, not so much.
Severe wage disparity is a real issue to contend with for sure. It is irresponsible for a company to force workers into low wages that are not at all proportional with the cost of living. Greed at the top can be astronomical and at times has resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs, homes, and cause undue stress and harm to countless families. However, it is just as irresponsible to assume every company, every executive, is this way and to call for artificial caps on all executive salaries because of the misdeeds of some, not all. There are moral and immoral people on every rung of the socio-economic ladder, executives and janitors alike. One thing to keep in mind is the exponentially increased responsibilities, not necessarily in terms of number but also weight, that come with many executive positions. I hate to use anecdotal evidence, but I can't help it in this case to at least just use a particular man as an example of an executive who does not at all fit this perceived mold of the greedy, money loving executive pig that lives off the work of others, in no way deserving of large salaries. My father is vice-president of sales & marketing and also head of the automotive division of the skin care company he works for. He is responsible for millions of dollars of sales a year, as well as product development and continued growth for the automotive division. He earns a tidy sum for his work, but he does in fact earn every penny of it. Our family enjoys upper-middle class wealth because of the hard work he puts in at the office every day and more often than not at home every weekend. He is constantly pouring over data, making reports, keeping up with market trends, staying in touch with distributors, clients, and keeping tabs on potential areas for growth as well as the competition. No he does not do the manual labor, drive the warehouse forklift, or come home dirty and sweaty like many of the workers at the plant do. But in no way does that reflect on the amount of time and effort he puts into his work, sometimes at the expense of time with the family because that's what his job requires.
What I am saying is that though he is compensated very well for his work, and there are undoubtedly some in this country who would like to see executives like him not make as much as they do just because of the principle of wage disparity, he is compensated in a manner that is proportional to his value to the company as a whole. His responsibilities and decisions weigh heavily on the direction and success of the entire company. He has acquired specific skills and experience over the years working his way up the corporate ladder that make him the right tool for the requirements of his job. It would be extremely unfair to him to cut his salary just to diminish wage disparity. Of course a company should reward its employees generously, including everyone at the bottom. But I find fault in allowing that mindset to blind a person to the fact that many executives actually deserve high pay. Not all of course, there are many that will bleed a company dry for their own personal benefit and toss its employees around with no regard for their income needs. But not every executive is like that, and I object to any sweeping assertion that every executive in corporate America should have an artificial wage cap. My father may make almost 6 times what the average worker in the plant does, but he again earns every penny of it. To artificially deny him that fair compensation, dictated by the head of the company, is greed in the opposite direction. Greed by those who think his work is just making powerpoint presentations and playing golf all day. Greed by those who assume an executive's job is among the easiest professions in the world, and because of that executives owe everyone below them a piece of their salary pie. I assure you, there are highly paid executives of some companies that deserve the pay they are rewarded.
The company my father works for is doing very well through this economic crisis, and they see no reason that it would not continue to do so for the foreseeable future. He is an instrumental part of keeping this healthy company afloat and moving amid the economic wreckage littering the corporate landscape in America. One may look at the fact that he makes 6 times the average plant worker (15 times what I made there as a summer intern a few years back) and shout "capitalist pig!", but the company is healthy and growing while others are in decline or failing completely because of the smart strategy and decision making by those at the top of the company.
My parents are both children of divorced households, alcoholic parents, and very poor socio-economic environments. One grew up in the ghetto of San Diego, running around barefoot eating only plain white toast for breakfast everyday and a single egg for lunch for years. The other grew up with the weight of being among the poorest kids at school, 12 years old walking home from swim practice alone at night while dad is drunk in a bar downtown and who eventually wrote him out of his will because he didn't want to keep working at the failing family radiator repair shop in the desert. My parents know what it is like to work dead-end jobs and have worked their way up the ladder of prosperity through determination so they could provide a better environment for their children than they had growing up. And they succeeded. I say all this because my father is a real person, my parents are real people, and he is not some evil corporate menace that feeds off the backs of the poor and the uneducated. My parents give generously to charity because they believe in helping other people through tough times, because they know exactly what it is like; they experienced it at the worst possible time in life. Anyone who says that my father's salary is unfair, he should have his pay capped and the difference spread thinly amongst the general employees can straight go to hell in my book. He is a man if integrity and does not "hoard his wealth from the masses". He gives and gives because he was once on the receiving end of that kind of giving.
Painting all executives with this biased brush of "they make 6 times as much as the factory worker so they must just be greedy pigs, lets take their income and give it to everyone else" is not only incredibly cold and selfish, but it is also a misguided and over correctional attempt for a perceived wrongdoing represented by the executives' high salaries. I'll say it again once more: many executives, especially of healthy companies, do much more work that the average American does not see. And it is this hard work, these weighty decisions, this forward thinking and progressive mindset towards growth for the entire company, that grants many (not all) executives salaries, though they are large, that are actually proportional to the work done and the value of the results of said work obtained by the company from the efforts of those executives.
Ok I'm done now.
One may look at the fact that he makes 6 times the average plant worker
Which means he is not relevant to this topic. When executives were properly compensated, it was 17 times the average employee's salary. Today executives reap 50, 300, and higher times that average. Where the company is not productive, that number is highest.
Working hard says nothing. Sculley did same hard work for Apple Computer. Therefore Apple went into major decline.
Executives do not oversee $multimillion operations. Executives provide attitude and knowledge for those who oversee those $millions. That actual overseeing of those $millions are by the salesmen, production people, human resources coordinators, and other smaller people who actually do the overseeing. That is where real talent lies in a productive company.
The "6 times" was off the top of my head, can't give you precise wage statistics because I don't work for them anymore I'm in college. But the fact remains that he makes many times more than the average employee, but he does the work and has the responsibilities to deserve high pay as such.
You can call him whatever you want, executive or not doesn't matter one lick to me. I used the term executive because it is often thrown out there as a blanket label of highly paid white-collar professionals. I know what his job entails and he is a key part of determining the direction of the company, directing people and resources, making decisions that greatly affect the future of the company, not some goofball salesman in a plaid suit pitching ideas to a board. That's the way this company is structured, he manages a number of salespeople, market research folks, product prototype developers, etc., and uses these resources in collusion with other "executives" or whatever you want to call them, to make decisions about how the company should be run and where it is going. The point is, he is an example of a white-collar worker whose salary, purely due to it's size, is something of a target by people with an obsession to demonize anyone associated with those at or near the top of a large company. Lower vs. higher class, haves and have not's, however one wants to phrase it that is how these people see this wage disparity and wish to impose artificial caps on large salaries just because they are large.
"Who cares about what it takes to steer the direction of an international, multimillion-dollar company, can't be as hard as those suits who are off in Cabo/Greece/Napa Valley say it is". These people don't fully appreciate the responsibility that comes with many higher positions in large companies like my father's, and thus large salaries, because they have been jaded by the "robber barons" of the past and the Fannie Mae's of today. Pick apart the details of what I'm saying as much as you want, but that's what it boils down to: an over generalization of white-collar workers in upper division, high paying positions within large companies that none of them deserve to make what they do.
Simple as that.
Thanks for your comments Bullit. Quite appropriate. As we thread drift back into that stream of what is "rich" and "haves and have-nots" it is refreshing to hear your comments. I have worked hard to get to where I am and work many long hours to provide for my family and give them better than what I had. I can relate to much of your story. Thanks again.
Hey, I agree about Congress. But the people in Congress don't make millions of dollars.
really?
I try to stay out of the big long serious discussions ...partly because I really don't have the time to do the necessary research that would be required in order to not say anything
really stupid, and partly because they fucking bore me. You, however, have repeatedly demonstrated that you are free from any such compunctions. huzzah!
Really.
As of January 2009, the annual salary of each Representative is
$174,000.00.[7]
Senators 2008-present
$169,300 per annum
Do they have any other benefits? Receive any other sources of income? How's their retirement plan?
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Hillary Clinton and former president Bill Clinton reported income of $109.2 million for 2000 to 2007, paying taxes of $33.8 million for that period, according to documents released Friday.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/clintons-report-109-million-income/story.aspx?guid=%7BAC997CC1-E166-4E94-9879-160FE8147D34%7DYeah, but not everyone comes from a town called hope.
Do they have any other benefits? Receive any other sources of income? How's their retirement plan?
:haha:
I have a college education with some post grad studies - ended up in the financial industry. Have done the same job for 15 years, moved my way up- as my bosses income increased so did mine. One year support staff was told we had to choose one of our own to let go, or not take a cost of living increase. We opted for no raise - this was the same year the company donated $100 million to Harvard. (Harvard was a write off -we weren't.)
December of alst eyar the company decided to cut back - 3,000 jobs. I wa sone. Had nothing to do with the boss I had worked my way up with for fifteen years - the Comapny saw me as expendible. (Probably because I was at teh top of my pay scale.) I found work with another company within three weeks - I al now studying for a test that will give me a chance to increase my pay back to the level it was in December. I have chosen to better myself in order to improve my quality of life.
I did not choose to make my position worse, but I have chosen to take action to make it better.
/Rant off.
Really.
As of January 2009, the annual salary of each Representative is $174,000.00.[7]
Senators 2008-present $169,300 per annum
all A [SIZE=3]B[/SIZE][SIZE=4]O[/SIZE][SIZE=5]A[SIZE=6]R[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=7]D![/SIZE]
~~The train to Stupidville is leaving on track 3!!!~~
allllllllllllll A [SIZE=3]B[/SIZE][SIZE=4]O[/SIZE][SIZE=5]A[SIZE=6]R[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=7]D![/SIZE]
chugga chugga chooo choo!!
End of the Line:
ELVERSON, PA
... It would be extremely unfair to him to cut his salary just to diminish wage disparity. Of course a company should reward its employees generously, including everyone at the bottom. But I find fault in allowing that mindset to blind a person to the fact that many executives actually deserve high pay. Not all of course, there are many that will bleed a company dry for their own personal benefit and toss its employees around with no regard for their income needs. But not every executive is like that, and I object to any sweeping assertion that every executive in corporate America should have an artificial wage cap. My father may make almost 6 times what the average worker in the plant does, but he again earns every penny of it. To artificially deny him that fair compensation, dictated by the head of the company, is greed in the opposite direction. Greed by those who think his work is just making powerpoint presentations and playing golf all day. Greed by those who assume an executive's job is among the easiest professions in the world, and because of that executives owe everyone below them a piece of their salary pie. I assure you, there are highly paid executives of some companies that deserve the pay they are rewarded...
Bullitt, kudos to your dad. You said he earned 6x what the average employee earns. That is in no way out of balance. I'm talking about the executives that earn hundreds x more. On average, a CEO makes close to 500x more than what the average employee earns. THAT is what I'm talking about. By the standards that I would apply, your dad would probably earn more, not less.
And ftr, I am demonizing ALL executives. I am only demonizing the greedy ones.
really?
I try to stay out of the big long serious discussions ...partly because I really don't have the time to do the necessary research that would be required in order to not say anything really stupid, and partly because they fucking bore me. You, however, have repeatedly demonstrated that you are free from any such compunctions. huzzah!
The people in Congress who have millions of dollars did not earn that money with their salaries IN Congress. Yes, there are a LOT of rich people in Congress. But their salaries are all under $400,000 a year. The president only earns $400,000 a year. Do you honestly think anyone's salary in Congress is more than the presidents?
The people in Congress who have millions of dollars did not earn that money with their salaries IN Congress. Yes, there are a LOT of rich people in Congress. But their salaries are all under $400,000 a year. The president only earns $400,000 a year. Do you honestly think anyone's salary in Congress is more than the presidents? So who is the idiot now?
what, now that you've changed what you said initially?
here's what you said:
the people in Congress don't make millions of dollars.
now you add the 'with their salaries' part.
and now you've edited out asking who the idiot is. smooth. I guess you already know the answer to that question then.
what, now that you've changed what you said initially?
here's what you said:
now you add the 'with their salaries' part.
and now you've edited out asking who the idiot is. smooth. I guess you already know the answer to that question then.
I edited that out because it was uncalled for. I was being reactive, because you implied that I was an idiot, and I'm not. But, I don't appreciate people calling me that either. It still isn't right for me to call you one in return. So I was trying to be the better person.
As far as what I said, "people in Congress don't make millions of dollars," and then adding on the salary part, what the hell did you think I was talking about in the first place? They RAISE millions of dollars for their campaigns, but that is not the same thing as being paid millions of dollars.
ya might want to check out where ron paul's campaign funds went.
my point was simply that they DO in FACT make millions of dollars. well...they GET millions of dollars. one way or another.....
Also, I though it naive of you to differentiate between them and corporate execs based on that criteria in the first place.
let's just go back to being strangers.
/off/what's with the LJ persona?/topic/
oh, and the stupid train quip was pointed more toward spexxcock than you. He fancies himself my nemesis, and rushes to the defense of anyone he thinks I'm picking on unjustly. It's a proud service he does for the weak and defenseless of the cellar. You forgot to thank him, I noticed.
/off/what's with the LJ persona?/topic/
oops. i was going to add a couple things to my list as LJ, and got side tracked.
You didn't have to change on my account I was just wondering if there was some symbolic milestone approaching.
oh, and the stupid train quip was pointed more toward spexxcock than you. He fancies himself my nemesis, and rushes to the defense of anyone he thinks I'm picking on unjustly. It's a proud service he does for the weak and defenseless of the cellar. You forgot to thank him, I noticed.
I am neither weak nor defenseless.
my point was simply that they DO in FACT make millions of dollars. well...they GET millions of dollars. one way or another.....
Also, I though it naive of you to differentiate between them and corporate execs based on that criteria in the first place.
let's just go back to being strangers.
Having a
salary that
pays you millions of dollars, and getting a
golden parachute that is worth millions of dollars is not the same thing as
raising millions of dollars that will be spent on a campaign. People in Congress do not MAKE anywhere NEAR what most CEOs
make. Money that people in Congress may make outside of their salary (like speaking gigs) has nothing to do with what they are paid while in Congress. Yes, they capitalize on their position, but they still don't
make as much a CEOs do.
I think in some cases they make more. They have much better benefits and they get all those goodies on the side from people like redux, or what he used to do/does/did...
Having a salary that pays you millions of dollars, and getting a golden parachute that is worth millions of dollars
Good God do your realize how small a percentage of people you are talking about in a very limited range of situations?
I think in some cases they make more. Th4ey have much better benefits and they get all those goodies on the side from people like redux, or what he used to do/does/did...
People like me?
Damn...what did I do now?
You paid all the elected officials off.. we now have wiretaps to prove it too!
I know what his job entails and he is a key part of determining the direction of the company, directing people and resources, making decisions that greatly affect the future of the company, not some goofball salesman in a plaid suit pitching ideas to a board. That's the way this company is structured, he manages a number of salespeople, market research folks, product prototype developers, etc., and uses these resources in collusion with other "executives" or whatever you want to call them, to make decisions about how the company should be run and where it is going. The point is, he is an example of a white-collar worker whose salary, purely due to it's size, is something of a target by people with an obsession to demonize anyone associated with those at or near the top of a large company.
Which is why CEOs once earned a massive 17 times more than the average employee.
How did companies (ie Ford) get productive? 1981 Ford was taught by Deming that the executive's job is "attitude and knowledge". Not decision making. That means providing direction - the strategic objective - then spending time verifying that employees are properly managing the accounts and properly trained to do so.
How was pre-1981 Ford fixed? Ford went from 48 levels of management (all who worked very hard) to 5 levels. Suddenly employees were empowered to do their job - and therefore did work better. Suddenly bosses no longer made so many decisions. Suddenly bosses provided attitude and knowledge by working for the employees. Suddenly Ford went from record losses to record profits in nine years. Why? Executives were no longer so important. The "too many white collar" problem was diminished. What did change? Decisions were made at lower levels where decisions are best made by the little people.
Again - Apollo 13 - the hero was never the big executive. If top executives are making heroic decisions, then communism exists. The hero was the little guy who did not even have a name. Executives do not make success. Executives only make success possible. As a result, the CEO deserves a massive 17 times more money - and no more.
Good God do your realize how small a percentage of people you are talking about in a very limited range of situations?
yes, I do. I say it over and over, the top 2 %. But people here still seem to think I am talking about them. :rolleyes:
I think in some cases they make more. They have much better benefits and they get all those goodies on the side from people like redux, or what he used to do/does/did...
Please. Where are they hiding it then?
Show me a congressperson who takes home 20 or even 10 million dollars a year.
Sugar - after being proved wrong by LJ you are now starting with me and changing your claim to salary. Have fun with that on your own.
If you want to see what they at least claim they are worth, just look it up yourself. On average, they are filthy rich.
OH fuck it - here...
That better? That's what WE are talking about.
How exactly did LJ prove me wrong?
And does that chart show where the wealth came from? a lot of people in Congress (Dianne Feinstein for example, or John Kerry or John McCain) have spouses who earn obscene amounts of money.
Can you please provide a link?
Also, I am not "starting" anything with anyone. I am responding to things people said to me.
http://www.opensecrets.org
Oh and the number of execs making 10 or 20 million is not as large as you appear to think.
A lot of people in politics come from families with money. It's the same the world over. It costs a lot of money to get elected, and it's pretty tough the first time when no one knows you, so that precludes a lot of poor or average people from entering the arena.
OK. From the website you posted, the highest net worth of someone in Congress is Jane Harmon at:
Rank Name Min Net Worth Average Max Net Worth
1 Jane Harman (D-Calif) $236,280,153 $397,412,077 $558,544,002
She is rich because she is married to Dr. Sidney Harmon, who founded Harmon Kardon Inc., the big electronics company. They have all kinds of stocks.
Most of the people in Congress have all kinds of stocks, and many of them have spouses who have very lucrative jobs. But, it would seem you are right, and a lot more people in Congress have a lot more money than I thought they did. The point I was making though, is that they don't make a lot of money because they are in Congress.
However, I concede. You and LJ were right, and I was wrong. So yea, let's get them as well.
:D See? I can admit when I'm wrong. I hope you didn't hit your head on the way down. ;)
Oh and the number of execs making 10 or 20 million is not as large as you appear to think.
Really? What number of execs make 10 or 20 million, and how many does she think?:cool:
It's a great site.
You can delve further and see where the money comes from, for each one. A large portion of Obama's cash comes from book sales.
That's IT. No more book writing for you fuckers.
yes, I do. I say it over and over, the top 2 %. But people here still seem to think I am talking about them. :rolleyes:
People in the top 2% earn above 200k. That is not uber rich. It is not people who make millions. It is barely upper middle class in many parts of the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
According to this link the top 5% make $153,542 and above, the top !% make $388,806.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.htmlThe New York Times reported Thursday on an analysis of income tax data carried out by Prof. Emmanuel Saez of University of California-Berkeley and Prof. Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, well known for their work on income inequality.
Their research indicates that
in 2005 the top 1 percent of all Americans, some 3 million people, received their largest share of the national income since 1928: 21.8 percent, up from 19.8 percent only the year before—a 10 increase percent in one year. The incomes of this group, those making more than $348,000 a year, rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of over $139,000, or about 14 percent.
The top 10 percent of the population carried away some 48.5 percent of all reported income in the US in 2005—also the highest percentage since 1928, on the eve of the Depression—an increase of 2 percent from 2004, and up from 33 percent of the reported total in the late 1970s.
The top tenth of 1 percent (300,000 people) and top one-hundredth of 1 percent (30,000 people) enjoyed the greatest increases of all. “The top tenth of a percent reported an average income of $5.6 million, up $908,000, while the top one-hundredth of a percent had an average income of $25.7 million, up nearly $4.4 million in one year,” according to David Cay Johnston’s article.
The top one-tenth of 1 percent of the US population had nearly as much income in 2005 as the bottom 150 million Americans. Each of those 300,000 individuals received 440 times as much income as the average person on the bottom half of the economic ladder, “nearly doubling the gap from 1980.”
While total reported income rose almost 9 percent in the US during the course of 2005,
average incomes for the bottom 90 percent of the population actually dropped, by $172 compared with the year before, or 0.6 percent.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/inco-m30.shtmlA chief executive officer of a Standard & Poor's 500 company was paid,
on average, $10.4 million in total compensation in 2008, according to preliminary data from The Corporate Library.
Excessive executive compensation has taken center stage since the government bailout of banks that began in September 2008. Americans have expressed outrage as CEOs and other executives responsible for the financial crisis have pocketed millions of dollars from bonuses and golden parachutes.
CEO perks alone grew in 2008 to an average of $336,248—or nine times the median salary of a full-time worker. Meanwhile, the economy tanked for working people while many companies were bailed out with more than $700 billion in taxpayer money, as well as low-interest loans and guarantees.
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/
In 1970, CEO salary and bonus packages were typically about $700,000 - 25 times the average production worker salary; by 2000, CEO salaries had jumped to almost $2.2 million on average, 90 times the average salary of a worker, according to a 2004 study on CEO pay by Kevin J. Murphy and Jan Zabojnik.
Toss in stock options and other benefits, and the salary of a CEO is nearly 500 times the average worker salary, the study says.
http://blogs.payscale.com/content/2008/07/ceo-salaries--1.htmlNone of that really supports your complaint that the top 1% are the problem. The top 10% also pay most of the taxes. The percents you are talking about are more likely the 0.1%.
WHATEVER dude. IF the bottom was paid more fairly, NO ONE would need to pay as much in taxes because we would need LESS government programs to support the ones at the bottom. If they were paid enough to actually support themselves, then why would we NEED foodstamps or welfare programs?
You really don't get where I am coming from, at all. And that bothers me, a LOT, because you know me.
Here's how it works, sug: income inequality increases during good times, decreases during bad times. The rich take profits when there are profits, and when there are no profits, they don't, you follow?
These studies end in 2005? Take it to 2008 and the numbers will be completely different.
And the rich people you hate so well all have 401ks and other retirement investments... all cut in half when the bubble popped. The poor, meanwhile did not have so many such things. So don't worry your li'l haid off about this issue. The bust solved it for you.
One was 2004, the other one was from 2008. But thanks UT, for trying. :)
The bust solved it for you, and you didn't notice it because you didn't know what to look for.
The bust has not solved it. The bust hurt many middle class and upper middle class people very bad, much more so than the people at the top. Many people lost their entire savings and retirement funds. The bust has also hit the middle class by job losses. How can you even say that with a straight face?
Now as a result of the bust, we might actually have some caps put in place that will make the playing field more even, but I'm not holding my breath.
Whatcha think their income/net worth changed % wise over say, the last 6 months?
I'm not holding my breath.
Please do it may solve a whole host of other issues. :right:
How can you even say that with a straight face?
Because I studied economics in an accredited MBA program at a major university, and I remember the very lesson when the nature of this was explained. Thanks, Dr. Prendergast.
The bust has not solved it. The bust hurt many middle class and upper middle class people very bad, much more so than the people at the top. Many people lost their entire savings and retirement funds. The bust has also hit the middle class by job losses. How can you even say that with a straight face?
Now as a result of the bust, we might actually have some caps put in place that will make the playing field more even, but I'm not holding my breath.
Are you suggesting a salary cap in the private sector?
like.....no corporate employee can make over 500k per year, or something like that?
Please do it may solve a whole host of other issues. :right:
Was that really called for?
Are you suggesting a salary cap in the private sector?
like.....no corporate employee can make over 500k per year, or something like that?
Not really. I would prefer something where the top dog can't make over a certain % of the average dogs. In addition, any bonuses should be tied to the health of the company in the form of stocks, to be paid out at a
later date. That way, if the company does well, everyone does well, and the top dog wouldn't be making decisions that would be based on greed for himself, but rather what is in the best interests of the company as a whole.
:eek:
You know classic, I thought you understood my reasoning. At least you did. What happened?
How can you even say that with a straight face?
Because I studied economics in an accredited MBA program at a major university, and I remember the very lesson when the nature of this was explained. Thanks, Dr. Prendergast.
Then you should know the bust has solved nothing.
Not really. I would prefer something where the top dog can't make over a certain % of the average dogs. In addition, any bonuses should be tied to the health of the company in the form of stocks, to be paid out at a later date. That way, if the company does well, everyone does well, and the top dog wouldn't be making decisions that would be based on greed for himself, but rather what is in the best interests of the company as a whole.
suppose for a moment that you start a company that sells widgets.
from the ground. you build this company up to the point that it goes public, and you sell 49% ownership in stocks and there is a board of directors and you are the CEO. The company makes $20 Billion profit every year.
Who decides how much of it you get to keep?
First of all, if I had a successful company, I wouldn't sell it off. Second of all, I would reward people by paying them fairly and allowing them to share in the profits that they helped create. The rest of the profits would go back into the company or to some form of charity, probably ones for animals or for creating sustainable ways of living.
Look, I understand that most people don't agree with my way of thining. I accept that. That doesn't mean that I am going to roll over and keep my mouth shut when I think something is unfair. hell no. I am going to bitch about it and write letters to Congress about it and do whatever I can to help change it. OK?
Was that really called for?
Probably not, but as a classist, I felt that it was my obligation. :rolleyes:
You know classic, I thought you understood my reasoning. At least you did. What happened?
Oh, I get your reasoning, I just disagree with it.
Look, I understand that most people don't agree with my way of thin(k)ing.
ok, then you understand how some others feel, right?
WHYY, the PBS TV station in Philly, announces they would lay off 17 people to make up $1.2 million of their budget shortfall. The CEO, who gets $740 k this year, was asked if cutting executive salaries was considered to save some of the 17 jobs. He said no, it was not considered.
Not even considered? Fuck you very much, you'll never see another dime of my money. :mad:
You don't understand B, it takes someone paid $740k to decide to continue syndicating Nova, Frontline and Antiques Roadshow. That's a very difficult decision and only top people can make it.
Also, it takes pristine offices on the most expensive block of Center City to record that daily hour of Fresh Air. You need to make sure that your best employees can walk to the office from Society Hill without going through any bad neighborhoods. And they must have the very best $1000 mics and room-in-a-room isolated sound studios, so that you can hear the elegant silence between sentences.
fuuuuuuuuuhhhhh -----
I ran the radio station when I was in college. We had maybe $4k of equipment in the studio and a $4k transmitter. I installed most of it myself. It's still running 25 years later.
Probably not, but as a classist, I felt that it was my obligation. :rolleyes:
Oh, I get your reasoning, I just disagree with it.
ok, then you understand how some others feel, right?
Yes, but just like you will express your opinion, I will also express mine.
... I would reward people by paying them fairly and allowing them to share in the profits that they helped create...
UT tried that when he owned his own business. The business failed.
Expensive people are expensive.
You pay good people enough so that they'll stay with you. You don't pay them more than that just so they'll love you. Their choice to stay or go for a specific dollar amount is entirely on them.
suppose for a moment that you start a company that sells widgets.
from the ground. you build this company up to the point that it goes public, and you sell 49% ownership in stocks and there is a board of directors and you are the CEO. The company makes $20 Billion profit every year.
Who decides how much of it you get to keep?
Sugar - You avoided this question - artfully so, but I am interested in hearing your opinion of who would have this responsibility.
lay off 17 people to make up $1.2 million of their budget shortfall. The CEO, who gets $740 k this year
1,200,000/17 = $70,588yr - Thats a pretty damn good wage!
Rule of thumb: actual employee costs (including ssi, benefits, etc) are salary plus a third.
You pay good people enough so that they'll stay with you. You don't pay them more than that just so they'll love you. Their choice to stay or go for a specific dollar amount is entirely on them.
Well why the hell can't we have that same kind of attitude about CEOs and execs then?
Sugar - You avoided this question - artfully so, but I am interested in hearing your opinion of who would have this responsibility.
I honestly don't know classic. I wouldn't have a problem with there being a cap on my salary to make sure my employees were failry paid.
UT tried that when he owned his own business. The business failed.
If that is true then I'm sorry to hear it failed UT. But can you blame it all on how much your were paying your employees, or was it something else? Probably a combination of things?
I honestly don't know classic. I wouldn't have a problem with there being a cap on my salary to make sure my employees were failry paid.
You might think differently if you worked hard all your life to make the company what it is from the ground up.
Yes, but that's pretty rare in the stratospheric salaries we've been talking about. Mostly hired into a cushy job, with perks up the ying yang, by an established corporation.
But you also have to agree there are very few jobs with stratospheric salaries.
You might think differently if you worked hard all your life to make the company what it is from the ground up.
Does that mean it's right to live an exhorbitantly lavish lifestyle while your employees struggle to feed their families? You certainly are *entitled* to do it, but is it right?
Expensive people are expensive.
And it was the right thing to do.
But you also have to agree there are very few jobs with stratospheric salaries.
Yes, only a few thousand, but they affect so many people they are the target of much deserved derision.
Mostly hired into a cushy job, with perks up the ying yang, by an established corporation.
Wait, we're talking about congress now??? :eyebrow:
No congress(wo)men got their jobs the old fashioned way, they bought them.
But you also have to agree there are very few jobs with stratospheric salaries.
From page 6...
The New York Times reported Thursday on an analysis of income tax data carried out by Prof. Emmanuel Saez of University of California-Berkeley and Prof. Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, well known for their work on income inequality.
Their research indicates that in 2005 the top 1 percent of all Americans, some 3 million people, received their largest share of the national income since 1928: 21.8 percent, up from 19.8 percent only the year before—a 10 increase percent in one year. The incomes of this group, those making more than $348,000 a year, rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of over $139,000, or about 14 percent.[/B]
The top tenth of 1 percent (300,000 people) and top one-hundredth of 1 percent (30,000 people) enjoyed the greatest increases of all. “The top tenth of a percent reported an average income of $5.6 million, up $908,000, while the top one-hundredth of a percent had an average income of $25.7 million, up nearly $4.4 million in one year,” according to David Cay Johnston’s article.
The top one-tenth of 1 percent of the US population had nearly as much income in 2005 as the bottom 150 million Americans. Each of those 300,000 individuals received 440 times as much income as the average person on the bottom half of the economic ladder, “nearly doubling the gap from 1980.”
While total reported income rose almost 9 percent in the US during the course of 2005, average incomes for the bottom 90 percent of the population actually dropped, by $172 compared with the year before, or 0.6 percent.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/inco-m30.shtml
A chief executive officer of a Standard & Poor's 500 company was paid, on average, $10.4 million in total compensation in 2008, according to preliminary data from The Corporate Library.
Excessive executive compensation has taken center stage since the government bailout of banks that began in September 2008. Americans have expressed outrage as CEOs and other executives responsible for the financial crisis have pocketed millions of dollars from bonuses and golden parachutes. CEO perks alone grew in 2008 to an average of $336,248—or nine times the median salary of a full-time worker. Meanwhile, the economy tanked for working people while many companies were bailed out with more than $700 billion in taxpayer money, as well as low-interest loans and guarantees.
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/
In 1970, CEO salary and bonus packages were typically about $700,000 - 25 times the average production worker salary; by 2000, CEO salaries had jumped to almost $2.2 million on average, 90 times the average salary of a worker, according to a 2004 study on CEO pay by Kevin J. Murphy and Jan Zabojnik. Toss in stock options and other benefits, and the salary of a CEO is nearly 500 times the average worker salary, the study says.
http://blogs.payscale.com/content/2008/07/ceo-salaries--1.html
A chief executive officer of a Standard & Poor's 500 company was paid,
on average, $10.4 million in total compensation in 2008, according to preliminary data from The Corporate Library.
Excessive executive compensation has taken center stage since the government bailout of banks that began in September 2008. Americans have expressed outrage as CEOs and other executives responsible for the financial crisis have pocketed millions of dollars from bonuses and golden parachutes.
CEO perks alone grew in 2008 to an average of $336,248—or nine times the median salary of a full-time worker. Meanwhile, the economy tanked for working people while many companies were bailed out with more than $700 billion in taxpayer money, as well as low-interest loans and guarantees.
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/ceou/index.cfmYes, only a few thousand, but they affect so many people they are the target of much deserved derision.
Oh no, it's a lot more than a few thousand.
I watched a program on Frontline the other night about Enron. By the gods those guys were corrupt to the bone! I swear, speculating should just be illegal as hell.
From page 6...
Yea, that is what I said. Very few people compared to the total pop of US workers.
What is speculating, Sugarpop?
Speculating involves people selling stocks based on what they will be worth in the future, not what their actual current value is. That is how Enron was able to make money when in reality they were losing money. That is one of the things that caused the crash we are experiencing right now. It is one way some investors bet against a company or commodity, thereby artificially inflating or deflating the actual price and wreaking all kinds of havok upon the rest of us. the same thing happened last year with oil.
Speculating involves people selling stocks based on what they will be worth in the future, not what their actual current value is.
That's why so many are now buying Ford stock.
It is not the speculating. It was intentional fraud. Enron accounting is alive in other companies.
Investment is speculation. You invest because the company may be providing innovation to mankind. Enron was not about speculating. Enron was about intentional fraud because profits - not the product - are only important.
Enron story is classic when people think the purpose of any company is only its profits. Enron and their peers even created a mythical CA energy crisis - and of course got away with it. That also justifies Enron accounting.
Speculating involves people selling stocks based on what they will be worth in the future, not what their actual current value is.
So what you are saying is that you buy stocks with no concern for what they'll be at some point in the future?
You invest because the company may be providing innovation to mankind.
Nooo, you invest to make money for yourself. The likelihood of profit is just greater in well run companies who also happen to be innovative. Don't mistake motive for method.
So what you are saying is that you buy stocks with no concern for what they'll be at some point in the future?
Edward Jones helps us. Ours went up significantly in the last month.
It's amazing how good that guy is from the grave.
I'm just waiting for some instant lessons on the proper pro-american method of investing. I'm sure someone will come along with a few clever one liners implying we'd all be wealthy and happy if we were smart enough to invest "the right way" like them.
Eh. I can't be that egotistical about it. The market is going to go where it is going to go. I am going to keep investing and just hope in the end, 20 years from now, it will be up and I will be comfortable.
You've got 20 years, sit back and relax. The Jones system is designed for that kind of investing. I started out there so I know it very very well.
Nooo, you invest to make money for yourself.
Which is why finance people must be heavily regulated; why finance people are so easily corrupted. If reward was the only purpose as lookout123 says, then Bill Gates should buy all Olympic gold metals and be the world's best athlete.
Meanwhile, in the real world, only people who deserve profits are those who contribute to the advancement of mankind – who make better products that an economy needs. When finance people are honest, that is what happens.
No profits? That message says the product / company is operating against mankind – working to corrupt the economy. Profits only say one might be advancing mankind. Eventually even the spread sheets from Enron style companies show how much they have subverted mankind because only profits were important.
If a company is earning a profit instead of advancing the product; that is the mafia. Obviously, finance people rarely grasp the concept because their training and nature is to be corrupt at any opportunity. Greed is good. Screw the people, economy, mankind, and the world. That simple principle commonly found in Wall Street where innovation and economic advancement is not the purpose. Where innovation is something messy that just gets in the way of profits.
American soldiers were found dead. Slumped over their broken down and jammed M-16s. Why? That was good. By using cheaper ammunition, profits were made. Lookout123’s principles. Profits are the purpose. Which is why those deaths were routinely covered up until whistle blowers were finally discovered. Those dead American soldiers are a direct result of lookout123's principles. Even openly advocated by the George Jr administration: ie Haliburton, K-Street, and long list of world record corruption.
Since profits are the purpose of any company, George Jr's adminstration even refused to prosecute Enron. In complete agreement with the principles advocated by lookout123.
I'm just waiting for some instant lessons on the proper pro-american method of investing. I'm sure someone will come along with a few clever one liners implying we'd all be wealthy and happy if we were smart enough to invest "the right way" like them.
and true to form ladies and gentlemen, I present *drumroll*
[SIZE="4"]TW![/SIZE]Which is why finance people must be heavily regulated; why finance people are so easily corrupted. If reward was the only purpose as lookout123 says, then Bill Gates should buy all Olympic gold metals and be the world's best athlete.
Meanwhile, in the real world, only people who deserve profits are those who contribute to the advancement of mankind – who make better products that an economy needs. When finance people are honest, that is what happens.
No profits? That message says the product / company is operating against mankind – working to corrupt the economy. Profits only say one might be advancing mankind. Eventually even the spread sheets from Enron style companies show how much they have subverted mankind because only profits were important.
If a company is earning a profit instead of advancing the product; that is the mafia. Obviously, finance people rarely grasp the concept because their training and nature is to be corrupt at any opportunity. Greed is good. Screw the people, economy, mankind, and the world. That simple principle commonly found in Wall Street where innovation and economic advancement is not the purpose. Where innovation is something messy that just gets in the way of profits.
American soldiers were found dead. Slumped over their broken down and jammed M-16s. Why? That was good. By using cheaper ammunition, profits were made. Lookout123’s principles. Profits are the purpose. Which is why those deaths were routinely covered up until whistle blowers were finally discovered. Those dead American soldiers are a direct result of lookout123's principles. Even openly advocated by the George Jr administration: ie Haliburton, K-Street, and long list of world record corruption.
Since profits are the purpose of any company, George Jr's adminstration even refused to prosecute Enron. In complete agreement with the principles advocated by lookout123.
So what you are saying is that you buy stocks with no concern for what they'll be at some point in the future?
Nooo, you invest to make money for yourself. The likelihood of profit is just greater in well run companies who also happen to be innovative. Don't mistake motive for method.
I'm not saying people don't invest hoping stock will go up in the future, of course they do. But speculators and short sellers and the like MANIPULATE THE MARKET to
artificially make prices go up or down so they can make a lot of money in the short run, then they pull out and everything goes all wonky and collapses. THAT is what I'm talking about. They use unethical practicies that should be outlawed, because they are the cause of millions of people losing their savings, their retirement funds, companies going bankrupt, etc. They have caused several crashes, and now they have caused a global crash. They need to be stopped,
period.
If Obama had not pumped so much money into the economy so quickly we would probably still be on a downward spiral and in a depression, but of course he gets reamed for doing it, sooooo...
If Obama had not pumped so much money into the economy so quickly we would probably still be on a downward spiral and in a depression, but of course he gets reamed for doing it, sooooo...
Or weak companies would have collapsed causing a very bloody but necessary culling of the herd. Now all we've done is create different problems from the ones people were crying about in the fall and winter. Greenspan slashed the rates and encouraged homeownership for the unqualified which helped bring us out of recession... i think i've heard someone say that wasn't the right thing to do. don't worry, i'm sure Obama thought everything through just fine.
I'm not saying people don't invest hoping stock will go up in the future, of course they do. But speculators and short sellers and the like MANIPULATE THE MARKET to artificially make prices go up or down so they can make a lot of money in the short run, then they pull out and everything goes all wonky and collapses. THAT is what I'm talking about. They use unethical practicies that should be outlawed, because they are the cause of millions of people losing their savings, their retirement funds, companies going bankrupt, etc. They have caused several crashes, and now they have caused a global crash. They need to be stopped, period.
Can you tell me what exactly they do in something other than outraged soundbyte terminology?
Or weak companies would have collapsed causing a very bloody but necessary culling of the herd.
lookout123 conveniently ignores a common factor in those nearly bankrupt companies. A widespread belief that the company's purpose is its profits. Those who most want profits (screw the products) are same that most need bankruptcy. lookout123 simply forgets that part. It could not be true. Otherwise concepts taught to stock brokers and business school graduates must be wrong!
How did 1979 Chrysler and 1981 Ford get saved? Executives who knew their purpose was profits (did exactly what Wall Street said) got removed. New executives were people who come from where the work gets done - know products are the purpose. Both companies went from near bankruptcy to record profits by simply ignoring profits and making better products. But that is not what stock brokers say. "Greed is good", says lookout123.
Many American jobs may have been saved simply by forcing companies to admit to Enron accounting. Enron accounting because profits are the only purpose. lookout123 never criticized Enron accounting for good reason.
Unfortunately, not enough Enron trained accountant and other business school graduates got the shaft they deserve. We know what created this recession. People so corrupt as to even say tax cuts (welfare) to the rich will increase profits. Money games by people so corrupt as to say the purpose of a company is profits.
lookout123 even said companies can earn profits without producing anything – and that is good. lookout123 has just approved of the mafia. So what is the difference between a stock broker or finance guy – and the mafia? Less than some want to admit. Profits can be earned by making no products - because corruption is the purpose of business.
New executives were people who come from where the work gets done - know products are the purpose. Both companies went from near bankruptcy to record profits by simply ignoring profits and making better products.
You're a fucking moron. oh i should probably finish that... you're a fucking moron
if you believe they became profitable by ignoring profits. good management understands that real profits come from creating products people want, at a pricepoint they can afford, with costs being significantly less than revenues.
Many American jobs may have been saved simply by forcing companies to admit to Enron accounting. Enron accounting because profits are the only purpose. lookout123 never criticized Enron accounting for good reason.
I haven't criticized Enron because they aren't a part of this discussion. They may be one of your obsessions but that doesn't make them relevant to every discussion.
We know what created this recession. People so corrupt as to even say tax cuts (welfare) to the rich will increase profits. Money games by people so corrupt as to say the purpose of a company is profits.
Sure, it could be that. Or we could also acknowledge the inarguable fact that recessions are an inevitable and necessary part of the economic cycle. They come and go regardless of political party or hair styles. Ever notice how wacko extremists tend to place blame at the feet of their enemies regardless of the facts?
lookout123 even said companies can earn profits without producing anything – and that is good.
Could you cite that post for me? I seem to have misplaced it.
So what is the difference between a stock broker or finance guy – and the mafia?
Oooh, I know I know! the mafia tend to kill fools whereas I just ridicule them on the internet.
Profits can be earned by making no products - because corruption is the purpose of business.
You've beat that drum long enough now would you care to provide some support for your incorrect ideas or should we just assume you're speaking out your ass again?
we should just assume you're speaking out your ass again?
fixed that for ya.
sorry, my greed fueled incompetence got the better of me there.
Or weak companies would have collapsed causing a very bloody but necessary culling of the herd. Now all we've done is create different problems from the ones people were crying about in the fall and winter. Greenspan slashed the rates and encouraged homeownership for the unqualified which helped bring us out of recession... i think i've heard someone say that wasn't the right thing to do. don't worry, i'm sure Obama thought everything through just fine.
Well, according to almost every economist I've heard interviewed, they agree we would be in much worse shape. Of course all of them don't agree about different aspects of all the different plans, but they pretty much all agree he (and Bush also) acted quickly and with a lot of money, which is what needed to happen. You saw what happened with teh collapse of just one bank. Imagine that x about 50 of the biggest financial institutions in the world. It would have been chaos.
Can you tell me what exactly they do in something other than outraged soundbyte terminology?
Look, I have read a LOT about this, and I have watched a LOT about this, but granted I don't completely understand every aspect of it. I can certainly post clips of how "those in the know" describe it, but I thought you would appreciate me speaking in my own words. If you want something deeper, I'll have to use links or cut and paste.
You know, I feel like you are just trying to trip me up, not because I'm wrong, but because you think I'm too stupid to understand what I'm talking about. Well, I've got news for you. A lot of those really smart people who were doing it didn't completely understand it either, because if they did, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Following are just a few places where I have gleaned information about what is going on, and things that are related and have happened in the past, like the price of oil last year, or what happened during the Great Depression and how it was different, and the actions we took then vs what we haven't done this time, and how that might adversely affect us. It is all connected. I can post more, if you'd like lookout. I also get a lot of information from PBS and PBR shows like Democracy Now and Frontline and Bill Moyers, or from various magazines, like Fortune, Mother Jones, Time or Adbusters, and I sometimes read papers like the Washington Post, or New York Times, I like people like Paul Krugman, Arrianna Huffington and Noam Chomsky, and I sometimes read Salon or other online sources. I watch a lot of msnbc and cnbc and cnn as well. So, I am actually getting information from a whole lot of different sources.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/regulation/
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04242009/transcript1.html
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02132009/transcript3.html
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/finance/
http://www.cnbc.com/id/28892719
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26334704
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29476319
I watched a couple of shows on (I think) the History Channel as well, but I can't find them.
I didn't realize the guy that invented/marketed the Hula-Hoop and made a gazillion dollars, was advancing mankind. :smack:
PBS
Democracy Now
Frontline
Bill Moyers
Fortune
Mother Jones
Time
Adbusters
Washington Post
New York Times
Paul Krugman
Arrianna Huffington
Noam Chomsky
Salon
So, I am actually getting information from a whole lot of different sources.
:lol: Yep, you've got all points covered, from the mildly left to the radical left.
Thanks UT. That is my point of contention with Sugarpop. You can read a lot of sources and find they all the same thing, that's great. What you have to consider is whether they say the same thing because they are correct or because they are all incorrect together.
In my world I describe the phenomenon like this: I get clients who sho up and tell me how they are very safely invested because they are very diversified with no more than 5% of their money in any one mutual fund... the problem is that those funds own almost the same thing so they aren't really diversified at all.
Good points - they probably get their information from the same/similar biased sources, just like the opposing view.
When they are all telling you what you WANT to believe, hear or agree with its difficult not to get all worked up.
I try to watch, read, listen to multiple platforms from different leanings and then take the extremist views out, knowing that the truth is usually somewhere between the two.
Oh good grief. Those are not all left sources. Some of them are, but most of them are completely unbiased and right in the middle. And ftr, when I was trying to figure out what happened, I went to sources like Forbes, Fortune and the Wall Street Journal as well. Those are financial magazines. And CNBC is a financial network.
Tell me lookout, what is wrong with any one of those sources that I listed? NOTHING.
but most of them are completely unbiased and right in the middle
How could you know?
How could you know?
How could you know they aren't?
By reading/watching a broader set of sources, it makes it easier to see where everybody really lands.
Well, if you rely on Fox News and the Weekly Standard and Bill Kristol and publications/people like that, then almost every source that is in the middle is going to look extremely left.
People on the right constantly whine about the left lean of the media, but it simply is not true. I know, because I am a leftie, and many of the news sources are too far to the right for my tastes.
I know, because I am a leftie,
:eek: Really? I would have never guessed. :eek:
Well, if you rely on Fox News and the Weekly Standard and Bill Kristol and publications/people like that, then almost every source that is in the middle is going to look extremely left.
People on the right constantly whine about the left lean of the media, but it simply is not true. I know, because I am a leftie, and many of the news sources are too far to the right for my tastes.
So you like to listen John Stewart and Colbert as have interesting and accurate comentary on the news? They are far from the middle. They are as left as Rush is right. BTW I listen to none of them.
You mean the guys on COMEDY Central?
You mean the guys on COMEDY Central?
Is there really a difference between them and Faux or msnbc?
Oh yeah there is - the comedy central guys are
intentionally funny.
So you like to listen John Stewart and Colbert ... are far from the middle. They are as left as Rush is right.
So which are more flaming liberals? Then - or Colin Powel? It was decreed by mainstream Republican party leaders: Colin Powel is a flaming liberal. Who is more lefty liberal?
Is there really a difference between them and Faux or msnbc?
Oh yeah there is - the comedy central guys are intentionally funny.
haha....so true.
They are all entertainers.
I try to watch a little of each station/channel. However, there are some people that I almost immediately turn off - O'Rielly, Olberman, Beck, Hannity, Maddow & Matthews come immediately to mind. They all spin stories so fast to fit their preconceived positions or they'll completely ignore a story that doesn't support them.
So you like to listen John Stewart and Colbert as have interesting and accurate comentary on the news? They are far from the middle. They are as left as Rush is right. BTW I listen to none of them.
John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are comedians, silly man. And Rush is an
entertainer. He is no more a journalist than I am.
And I know you watch Bill O'Reilly. :p
I try to watch a little of each station/channel. However, there are some people that I almost immediately turn off - O'Rielly, Olberman, Beck, Hannity, Maddow & Matthews come immediately to mind. They all spin stories so fast to fit their preconceived positions or they'll completely ignore a story that doesn't support them.
Rachel Maddow is not a spin artist. She is actually quite good. She admits when she is wrong or makes a mistake. Chris Matthews is good too. I admit though that Olberman is extreme. I still watch him though. I find him very
entertaining. And Joe Scarborough? I like Mika better. :D I think CNN is the most unbiased news source on TV.
John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are comedians, silly man. And Rush is an entertainer. He is no more a journalist than I am.
And I know you watch Bill O'Reilly. :p
yea, sometimes. not so much anymore. But he is a commentator. I use to agree with about 80% of what he said. now it is more like about 70 or 65% if I had to guess. But I enjoy listening to his commentary about the news.
I think CNN is the most unbiased news source on TV.
That I'll agree with the rest is all BS - Maddow is as biased as they come. No different than the rest.
Where's Walter Cronkite when ya need him? :(
Ballmer Says Tax Would Move Microsoft Jobs Offshore
June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world’s largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama’s plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.
“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said in an interview. “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.”
Obama on May 4 proposed outlawing or restricting about $190 billion in tax breaks for offshore companies over the next decade. Such business groups as the National Foreign Trade Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable have denounced the proposed overhaul.
Typically, he said, a company like Microsoft develops a product like Windows in the United States and deducts those costs against U.S. income. It then transfers the technology to a subsidiary in Ireland, where corporate tax rates are lower, without charging licensing fees. The company then assigns its foreign sales to the Irish subsidiary so it doesn’t have to claim the income in the United States.
“What Microsoft wants to do is deduct the cost at a high tax rate and report the profits at a low tax rate,” Bosworth said. “Relative to where they are now, the administration’s proposals are less favorable, so there will be some rebalancing on their part.”
Ballmer estimated that higher taxes under the proposal would reduce profits for companies that comprise the Dow Jones Industrial Average by between 10 and 15 percentage points.
“It’s just a question of how much will the Dow come down,” Ballmer said. “It’s not about companies anyway; we’re talking about shareholders.”
While the rules were designed in 1997 to protect U.S. companies from paying excessive tax to other governments, Obama administration officials say it has evolved into a way to duck U.S. liabilities. Altering the rule, which Obama dubbed a “loophole,” would generate $86.5 billion in new revenue by 2019, the administration says.
The third international tax proposal would change rules governing how companies can claim tax credits for levies paid to foreign governments. Officials say some companies abuse the rule to accelerate tax credits before they could otherwise be claimed.
Obama has said his proposals would protect or create jobs in the United States.
Thompson called the Obama proposals “counterintuitive” to the administration’s other stated goals of fostering an innovation-oriented economy.
“It is a little bit ironic that most of our most significant trading partners and partners globally have taken the tack that they’ll reduce corporate tax rates to stimulate economic growth and not raise corporate tax rates,” Thompson said.
A pretty good read. I can't wait to hear about the meeting Obama has with these guys. Should be interesting.
A more likely senerio would be for the companies to just move lock-stock-and-barrel and no longer be a US company. In the long run, if it is painful enough for them to stay, it would be cheaper for them to become a company of Dubi.
Perhaps they will just "move" their headquarters to, say Dubai or some other tax friendly nation. I wonder what the ramifications would be on that scenario.
The state of Delaware has a lot of companies "headquartered" there for similar reasons. They were getting a lot of tax revenue by luring companies there. I think the state is now taking a huge revenue hit due to the economy.
“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said in an interview. “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.”
Why wouldn't they just do that now? It's cheaper, but not cheaper
enough?
It's because there's a skill limit to what you can outsource, plain and simple, and most companies who significantly outsourced learned this the hard way in the last 5 years. The innovation still happens here. If the other countries had it, they'd be competing against us with their own companies, not trying to siphon off our low-skill jobs. When's the last time we outsourced anything to, say, Japan? We don't, because their workers are just as expensive as ours, because their overall skill level is commensurate with ours. Ballmer's just using PR scare tactics to get out of paying higher corporate taxes.
All they need to do is move the headquaters and re-flag the company. Any aspect of the company could still remain here.
Why wouldn't they just do that now? It's cheaper, but not cheaper enough?
All I was saying is that they can incorporate the company overseas. Nothing really changes but the paperwork and the tax liability. I don't profess to be an expert. That is why I posed the question in the first place. I'm not talking about outsourcing jobs, just the tax liability, so to speak.
[tailposting]
This is why I am an internationalist. The present system of nations gives global corporations the opportunity to play national governments off against each other in a low-tax bidding-war.
[/tailposting]
:runaway:
All I was saying is that they can incorporate the company overseas. Nothing really changes but the paperwork and the tax liability. I don't profess to be an expert. That is why I posed the question in the first place. I'm not talking about outsourcing jobs, just the tax liability, so to speak.
No worries, I was only getting kind of ranty at Steve Ballmer (who I happen to think is a tool,) not you.
All they need to do is move the headquaters and re-flag the company. Any aspect of the company could still remain here.
Why haven't they already done it?
Some have - Some have different "companies" in many countries.
Why haven't they already done it?
My guess would be that it has not become financially painful enough yet. But I have no doubt that when it does they will move.
My guess would be that it has not become financially painful enough yet. But I have no doubt that when it does they will move.
...and then the taxes received from those business will, instead of increasing with the raised tax rate, will become virtually zero. After which the liability of the companies remaining becomes even greater and their rates increase further and the cycle continues - hypothetically.
The higher the tax rate goes the more money will be spent on finding bigger and better loopholes. It is a never ending cycle where the only goal is for the politicians to keep enough people hoodwinked so they stay in power.
A flat tax with ZERO if's and's or but's is the only way to stop the cycle, so it will remain a neverending cycle.
My guess would be that it has not become financially painful enough yet.
Reality - over 50% of American companies pay no taxes including some of the largest. These 'we will move if taxes increase' is not the threat. Taxes are higher in other countries where they might want to relocate.
The reason for moving is most often to avoid US laws such as bribery. To permit corruption and to even diminish shareholder control is more often a reason to move overseas. American corporate taxes are some of the lowest in the world once we add all the exemptions and other 'secret' benefits.
Good point Lookout. Too bad too many of the politicians have been bought.
Since America is the biggest consumer base in the world, we buy more crap than anywhere, we should simply charge the crap out of companies who want to import stuff back into this country to sell. They would be injuring themselves in the longrun. They have too much power. Corporations were never meant to have so much power. It's a shame, really.
Huh? Could you explain that a little bit more please?
Companies that are essentially American companies, who decide to outsource all their labor (instead of supporting THIS country, the country where they were able to succeed, by supplying jobs here) or move their offices to another country to get out of paying taxes should pay high tarrifs or other fees that would basically allow us to recoup tax money from them. Do you realize that more than 50% of corporations in this country pay NO taxes? ZERO. Why should corporations based in this country get away with that? Why do they hate their own country?
Why do you hate America so much?
Why do you hate America so much?
Even as a joke, that question in its various forms is starting to make me gag.
Bring on the Socialist States of Amerikia! Hail to the Second Comming of Christ. President Obama!
Good grief! Why do you assume I hate America, when I just want things to go back to the way they were when we were strongest as a country? All the new rules with regard to the way corporations work and are run, those are relatively new. 20-30 years ago, CEOs and executives were not paid the obscene amounts of money they make today, the workforce was better paid and taken care of, there were regulations in place that did not allow companies to get away with the corruption and greed they get away with today, we had a very strong middle class, we still MADE THINGS in this country, and the upper 2% paid more taxes, so did corporations. The dissolution of all those things has made us much weaker as country, so why would you think I hate America, when I only want the things that us strong as a country?
The people who don't want those things, the people who want even weaker regulations, and less government control, and more corporate power, those are the people who hate America. Those are the things have made us weaker and allowed corruption to thrive, and nearly brought the entire world economy.
Although I am a socialist and would prefer that form of government, I am not talking about socialism. I am talking about capitalism that isn't broken. And really, I think you should look up what socialism is Merc, because the way you (and many others) use it is not really what it is.
Bring on the Socialist States of Amerikia! Hail to the Second Comming of Christ. President Obama!
And this kind of shit really adds to everyone's understanding of the issues. :greenface
...I just want things to go back to the way they were when we were strongest as a country ... 20-30 years ago
You mean 20 years ago at the end of the Reagan era, or 30 years ago at the end of the Carter era?
You have to define 'strong'. In many ways, our entire financial structure during Reagan and continuing during Clinton was reworked so that money had less and less to do with actual productivity. In some ways it was a giant Ponzi scheme or some kind of raffle where money was producing more money without actually creating anything.
It got worse when Glass-Steagall Act was watered down by both Reagan and Clinton (with a Republican Congress). Suddenly, BANK was no longer a 4 letter word meaning community investment, reserve requirements, and a conservative approach.
IMO, except for the lending freeze, we are where we should be, focused on real world valuations and a world where debt is called or at least treated as debt, not 'leverage'.
Consistent and indefinite %20 growth is not normal for anything except cancer. We may be returning to a world where getting back %5-10 on an investment is considered good and rating agencies don't have their heads up their asses.
And this kind of shit really adds to everyone's understanding of the issues. :greenface
I thought since we are making unrealistic assessments and generalizations about the turn of events in the last 6 months I would just get in my :2cents: .